You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
feat: replace Ask ChatGPT with provider-agnostic AI Review
Replace the single-provider "Ask ChatGPT" button with a transparent,
provider-agnostic "AI Review" workflow:
- New modal shows the full prompt text before sending, so users can
review exactly what data will be shared with the AI provider
- Dropdown to select provider: ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini
- Copies prompt to clipboard and opens the selected provider
- Improved prompt with structured 6-point CVE quality review covering
description quality, affected block, schema compliance, CWE
classification, references, and completeness
- Adds JSON parse error handling and fixes "inut" typo
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
'I have this CVE record and want help improve it especially the "affected" block.\nPlease check it against the CVE JSON 5.x schema guidance (https://github.com/CVEProject/cve-schema/blob/main/schema/docs/versions.md).\nHere is the full CVE Record:\n\n '+
'You are a CVE record quality reviewer. Analyze this CVE JSON 5.x record and provide specific, actionable feedback to improve it before publication.\n\nReview the record for:\n\n1. Description Quality — Is the vulnerability description specific about the impact, attack vector, and affected component? Does it follow the pattern: "[Vulnerability type] in [component] in [product] [version] allows [attacker type] to [impact] via [vector]"?\n\n2. Affected Block — Are vendor, product, and version fields precise? Should versionType (e.g., "semver"), lessThan/lessThanOrEqual, or defaultStatus be used instead of listing only exact versions? Are version ranges properly expressed?\n\n3. Schema Compliance — Does this conform to CVE JSON 5.x per the schema guidance at https://github.com/CVEProject/cve-schema/blob/main/schema/docs/versions.md\n\n4. CWE Classification — Is the CWE ID present and correctly formatted? Does it use the cweId field?\n\n5. References — Are reference URLs present and tagged with appropriate types (e.g., "advisory", "patch", "vendor-advisory")?\n\n6. Completeness — Are there missing recommended fields like metrics (CVSS), timeline, or additional affected products?\n\nFor each issue found, explain what is wrong and why it matters. Then provide a corrected version of the complete JSON with all improvements applied.\n\nCVE Record:\n\n'+
42
+
CVE_JSON
43
+
);
44
+
}
45
+
functionshowAIReview(){
46
+
varCVE_JSON=ace.edit("mjsoneditor").getValue();
47
+
try{
48
+
if(!check_json(JSON.parse(CVE_JSON))){
49
+
swal.fire({
50
+
type: "error",
51
+
html: "It seems like your CVE JSON is not ready. Please input required content before sending for validation.",
52
+
title: "CVE JSON not ready or created yet!",
53
+
});
54
+
return;
55
+
}
56
+
}catch(e){
43
57
swal.fire({
44
58
type: "error",
45
-
html: "It seems like your CVE JSON is not ready. Please inut required content before sending for validation.",
46
-
title: "CVE JSON not ready or created yet!",
59
+
html: "Invalid JSON. Please fix syntax errors before requesting AI review.",
0 commit comments